Debates of Dec. 2nd, 2024

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[An hon. member]

A former minister.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that correction: a former minister. We cannot even seem to get members of the House who potentially have information to go before committee. My point is, as it relates to this report, that there is this double standard that Conservatives seem to be placing. On the one hand, they are saying we absolutely need to get this minister appearing before committee. That is what this whole report is about. I apologize to my colleague from the Conservatives if she feels I am not staying on topic. This is literally just two sentences that we are debating. That is what this is.

We are debating whether the minister should be dragged before committee. We just had to drag Patrick Brown to the public safety committee; he has to be there before December 10. All I am saying is maybe that should be extended to the member for Calgary Nose Hill, too, because she seems to have some information that I would bet the committee wants to get down to. I am sure my colleagues from the Conservatives are equally concerned about the member for Calgary Nose Hill, as they are in this motion they tabled today in the House.

I end with where I started: I believe this is nothing more than an attempt by Conservatives to drag people who have already stated their position and admitted they are going to remove themselves from the position they are in, in order to clear their name. We have to let that process unfold. I am content with how it has been dealt with.

I feel there is an opportunity for the former minister to provide his position on what has transpired. Then, I believe, is the best time for everyone to judge him.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, they cannot stand the truth. They could not handle it. That is why we have been in a state of limbo and there has been no government legislation debated in the House for weeks.

It is because they, their Prime Minister and their party, refuse the order of the majority of members in the chamber. The member tries to deflect the fault to this side of the House, when it is that side of the House that has been consistently found to be refuting the House's order. With the continued cover-up of corruption, whether it was the SNC-Lavalin scandal years ago, which saw the dismissal of an honoured member, or as it continues today, on and on, he continues to try to deflect. Why?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member almost executed that as well as Jack Nicholson did in A Few Good Men, but not quite. I thank the member for at least admitting that this concurrence motion is nothing more than trying to prolong the filibuster they are doing on the former motion we have been dealing with for months. He said that. He just said that in his comments. What he said is they are doing this because they are trying to hold the government to account for X, Y and Z, and he mentioned nothing about this report. All I can say is to thank him.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member across the way is putting words in my colleague from B.C.'s mouth here—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We are descending into the debate we are having. Maybe if we get another round, I will let the hon. member for Brandon—Souris ask a question.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech by my colleague from Kingston and the Islands. I have one question. Does he condone the actions of his Liberal colleague from Edmonton Centre?

Does he believe that his colleague did the right thing? Does he believe that he should face no consequences for claiming to be indigenous when he is not? I would like him to comment on that.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what I said in my speech, if the member was listening, was that the member for Edmonton Centre has defended himself, said that what he is being accused of is not true and removed himself from cabinet in order to defend his reputation and clear his name. Rather than jump to judgment, which my friend across the way wants, I would rather wait until he has the opportunity to do that and see how it comes out. Then we can decide whether we want to tar and feather him.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, early in the post-election of 2015 and again in 2019, the Liberal Party published a document claiming it had 11 indigenous MPs. Included was the former minister of employment and social development, the member for Edmonton Centre.

Why does the member think the Liberals did that?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for the same reason all political parties will identify various different people with various different backgrounds, I think that is why it was done. I guess the issue at heart here is whether, and this is what I am reading between the lines, the member for Edmonton Centre was in error by doing that and should not have done that. That is what I am hearing and that is what is out there.

All I am saying is that he says that was not the case. He wants to clear his name and has stepped back from some of his responsibilities in order to do that. Why not give him the opportunity to try that? If it then comes out that he was being egregious in his statements, then hold him to account at that point. Why the rush to judgment right now?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague can talk about the two systems the Conservatives have, for example, what they do with Liberals versus the member for Calgary Nose Hill.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this was the amazing thing we saw earlier today with the question from the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman. We could not have seen a double standard on display better than in that question. He basically said, “Hold on. She said that she did not do it. We need to believe her.” Meanwhile, when the member for Edmonton Centre says that he is being misrepresented, everybody jumps on top of him. Why not apply the same standard to everybody? The member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman showed exactly how he cannot do that.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want first to recognize that we are gathered on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

I would like to acknowledge the valuable work the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs has carried out by examining the infrastructure deficit confronting many indigenous communities. The report prepared by the committee, titled “A Path to Growth: Investing in the North”, provides important insights into the challenges facing infrastructure development and maintenance in the north and helpfully recommends potential solutions for them. The report will help to inform policy and program decisions going forward. Common themes from the report are core to how we are proactively addressing challenges in partnership with indigenous peoples. Following their lead, we are working to remove systemic barriers to economic development and to advance indigenous economic self-determination.

However, before outlining some of the many ways we are making progress, I must respond to misleading statements being made in today's debate and set the record straight. As members of government have repeatedly made clear, Global Health Imports was never listed on the indigenous business directory. Consequently, the company has not ever been part of the government's procurement program for indigenous businesses, nor was it awarded any contracts through the procurement strategy for indigenous businesses.

Instead, I want to bring the focus back to tangible activities that are producing real results in the lives and for the livelihoods of indigenous peoples. Together with indigenous leaders, indigenous business and the broader sector, we are working to advance economic reconciliation. On this note, this past year Indigenous Services Canada convened two economic reconciliation round tables, which were attended by leaders from national indigenous organizations and national indigenous economic institutions, senior executives from Canada's financial sector, federal ministers, and senior federal officials. Indigenous peoples are leading the way to advance economic reconciliation, and what this level of engagement at the round tables demonstrates is that economic reconciliation is not a conversation limited to government. There are also commitments and buy-in from the financial sector to advance common goals.

By supporting self-determined economic priorities and collaborating with leading economic thinkers across Canada, we will continue to drive toward concrete actions and concrete solutions that will make a difference in the everyday lives of first nations, Inuit and Métis people.

The round tables have advanced a common understanding of how public and private sector actions can help to remove access to capital barriers. Participants brought forward ideas for how greater access to risk capital could help to finance infrastructure gaps, while also exploring ways the financial sector can continue to adapt and develop expertise to best serve indigenous communities in navigating complex land and financing questions. It is clear that relevant and topical data on indigenous economies is essential to supporting community-level investment decisions.

We are looking at opportunities for collaboration between indigenous institutions and financial and statistical experts to address data gaps through the publishing of indigenous economic outlooks. Partners are challenging us to reimagine how to develop these outlooks with opportunities to blend traditional economic indicators with qualitative data and narrative storytelling. A common theme across these conversations is the leading roles indigenous peoples must play in defining the challenges and solutions that will support their economic priorities. There are many opportunities to support exciting indigenous visions.

This is not the only way we are advancing economic reconciliation. Various economic development programs have been designed to support improved economic outcomes. For example, the aboriginal entrepreneurship program, the AEP, provides access to capital and access to business opportunities to indigenous entrepreneurs and business owners in Canada. This program seeks to increase the number of viable businesses in Canada that are owned and controlled by indigenous people, and it funds a broad range of entrepreneurial pursuits. It also aims to build capacity, reduce barriers and increase access to capital by forging partnerships that will increase economic opportunities for first nations, Inuit and Métis people.

Over the past 35 years, the program has distributed roughly 52,000 business loans worth $3.2 billion through its access to capital stream. These loans, I might add, have a repayment rate of over 95%. Consider that for every $1 million lent by indigenous financial institutions through the access to capital stream, $3.6 million is produced in total gross domestic product for Canada. That is an impressive return on investment.

Most beneficial is that an evaluation of the indigenous entrepreneurship and business development program over the period 2015-16 to 2020-21 found it is advancing indigenous self-determination by removing barriers to business capital and supports. Equally important is that it is sustaining the network of indigenous lending institutions, creating and expanding indigenous businesses and creating or maintaining jobs through lending.

That is not the only example of economic reconciliation in action. The aboriginal entrepreneurship program, which I just talked about, is actually led by and delivered through the National Aboriginal Capital Corporations Association, or NACCA, and the Métis capital corporations. It is highly significant that a program put in place to enable first nations, Inuit and Métis business owners to launch or grow their businesses is also led by strong indigenous leaders.

The National Aboriginal Capital Corporations Association and the Métis capital corporations administer about $25 million per year of equity capital, provided by the Government of Canada, to enable indigenous entrepreneurs to obtain affordable commercial loans. This indigenous-led program shows what success looks like when indigenous peoples are supported and empowered to independently deliver services.

The aboriginal entrepreneurship program also supports the $150-million indigenous growth fund. This indigenous-led and -designed fund is providing indigenous businesses with a fully independent source of capital.

The procurement strategy for indigenous businesses I mentioned earlier is another initiative producing positive economic results for indigenous people. It facilitates access to federal procurement opportunities so that indigenous businesses can win contracts, generate revenue and gain experience that, in turn, can assist them in winning larger future contracts within both the public and private sectors. What we have heard from indigenous leaders is that they want the procurement strategy for indigenous businesses to stay. It continues to evolve and adapt to changing needs and fiscal realities, in large part because we are listening to indigenous leaders and businesses.

The resulting feedback from procurement round tables held with indigenous leaders since 2018 led directly to improvements to the strategy, which is why our relationships with indigenous partners are so important. Our programs, policies and services must apply indigenous insights, lessons learned and expertise, and that is exactly what we are doing.

These efforts have accelerated since 2021, when we began to co-develop a transformative indigenous procurement strategy with indigenous partners. The five-year process is currently under way, and these reforms will improve existing indigenous procurement policies and programs. Furthermore, they will help ensure benefits intended for indigenous peoples go to indigenous peoples.

An important part of this collaborative work includes determining a path forward to transferring the administration of the indigenous business directory to indigenous partners. One key message delivered by partners in our co-development discussions is that first nations, Inuit and Métis are best positioned to define and verify indigenous businesses.

Indigenous Services Canada is committed to working with partners, including the Assembly of First Nations, the Métis National Council, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the National Aboriginal Capital Corporations Association and the Canadian Council for Indigenous Business to transfer the verification of indigenous businesses to indigenous partners.

We know economic opportunities for indigenous businesses were removed or blocked through years of colonial policies and practices. The concrete actions taken by the Government of Canada, in co-operation and partnership with indigenous leaders and businesses, must continue. We need the valuable insights and expertise of first nations, Métis and Inuit leaders. We need continued opportunities for meaningful dialogue, and we need reports like “A Path to Growth: Investing in the North” that shine a light on the work ahead.

It is economic reconciliation in action when we collaborate on efforts to support and empower indigenous people to fully and equitably participate, whether as small business owners or leaders of major projects in the economy.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals seem to be telling us that there is no need to get all worked up, but we are talking about indigenous identity theft. There is a problem when indigenous people themselves are telling Liberal MPs that they do not recognize them as indigenous. A similar situation came up last year with the member for Nickel Belt.

I am anxious to see what will happen. Does the member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam agree that the member for Edmonton Centre needs to appear before the committee as soon as possible, answer parliamentarians' questions, take responsibility for using public funds inefficiently, and take accountability?

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard the member for Edmonton Centre speak on the matter. He has assured me that there is no wrongdoing behind what has gone forward. There has been some confusion in his family history; he is sorting that out, and I have full confidence in him to do the right thing and to clear his name as we go forward.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, honestly, I cannot believe what the member has said. There are still boil water advisories, even though the government said that the nation-to-nation relationship was the most important one. There has been very little action on truth and reconciliation, and no action to speak of on murdered and missing indigenous women. Is the member not embarrassed that a minister of the Crown had to step down under allegations that he misrepresented his indigenous heritage?

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Edmonton Centre is not responsible for allegations that amount mainly to innuendo and smear against him.

In regard to water advisories, we committed to getting rid of almost all of them by 2021, and we did get rid of almost all of them by 2021. However, it is an ongoing issue that we work continuously with the various first nations communities to resolve.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the objective of awarding 5% of federal contracts to businesses owned by first nations is obviously commendable from the perspective of reconciliation. However, we realized that 1,100 businesses had been delisted because the Liberal government had done a poor job of designing the list, but also because people are trying to defraud the system and misappropriate funds when they do not represent first nations-owned businesses. The example comes from high up, since a former Liberal minister, the member for Edmonton Centre, is at the centre of a controversy because he falsely claimed that he and his business were indigenous in order to get federal contracts from his own government.

Does my colleague not think that is totally outrageous?

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I object to the characterization of the member as a pretendian. As I mentioned in my speech, the member for Edmonton Centre's company received no funding through any indigenous stream whatsoever. He is a man of honour with a good reputation, and I have full confidence that he will be able to restore his reputation as we go forward.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether the member shares the same concern that I have in regard to how the Conservative Party is bringing forward concurrence motions as a way to filibuster so we are not debating other issues that are of critical importance for all Canadians. The Conservatives always want a report to go back to committee, and they give specific instruction to the committee. We are seeing more and more of that. My concern is that standing committees should be able to determine who comes before the committee for testimony.

Does the member have any concerns in terms of how much of a control freak the the leader of the Conservative Party is and how much control he wants to have over standing committees?

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that these motions are a matter of an extended filibuster.

I believe that the standing committees ought to maintain control of their own business. This is an end run around the notion that we cannot compel members to appear. I think it is incontestable that this is a matter of slowing down the House so the Conservatives can claim it is broken.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Edmonton Centre has a lot to answer for, notwithstanding the fact that he recently resigned from cabinet in disgrace.

Among the serious matters that the member must answer for and be held accountable for is the fact that his shady, pandemic-profiteering PPE company falsely held itself out to be a wholly owned indigenous company when it applied for two federal government contracts. It was a blatant attempt to give the company's bids a leg-up in the government's procurement selection process. In other words, it was an attempt to steal government contracts from legitimately owned indigenous businesses. It is about as low as it gets. It is cultural appropriation in one of its most offensive forms. Do members know what else it is? It is outright fraud.

The Prime Minister knew about the fact that the minister's company had falsely represented itself in this way, and for days the Prime Minister stood behind the minister. He kept him in his cabinet. It was only when the Edmonton police officially announced that a criminal investigation had been launched into the member's company that he finally resigned from cabinet.

I have to say that, as bad as it was to stand behind the minister for days, the Prime Minister has stood behind the member for months, despite the fact that he faced a cloud of corruption. It is a cloud of corruption that involved the fact that he almost certainly violated the Conflict of Interest Act while he was involved in the operations of the shady PPE company while he sat in cabinet. That is a situation where the member broke the law. Text messages reveal that a Randy was involved in the operations, in a half-a-million-dollar shakedown, and no one can identify that Randy other than as the member for Edmonton Centre. However, that did not stop the Prime Minister from standing by the member.

Likewise, the member's company had been ordered by Alberta courts to pay back clients $8 million for ripping them off and faces not less than seven lawsuits alleging fraud. That was not enough to kick him out of cabinet, nor was the fact that the minister falsely held his company as being wholly indigenous-owned when applying for two government contracts.

A normal prime minister, in fact, any other prime minister, would have long said to the member for Edmonton Centre that he was fired from cabinet. However, we do not have a normal prime minister. This is a prime minister who has presided over a culture of corruption and conflict that goes right to the top, right to the Prime Minister himself.

I have to ask if the Prime Minister's reluctance to fire the member for Edmonton Centre related to the fact that he has been found guilty, not once but twice, of none other than breaking the Conflict of Interest Act.

Also, could his reluctance have something to do with the fact that he is, like the member for Edmonton Centre, a cultural appropriator? The Prime Minister has worn blackface more times than he can recall and has repeatedly worn highly inappropriate and culturally insensitive costumes, including while serving as Prime Minister.

Could it be that he was reluctant to fire the member for Edmonton Centre for such things as breaking the Conflict of Interest Act and being a cultural appropriator because, by that standard, not only would he have to fire the member, but he would also have to fire himself? I would submit that a strong inference in the affirmative can be drawn in that regard.

With respect to the member for Edmonton Centre and the fact that his company falsely represented itself as being wholly indigenous owned, the member's excuse is that he had no idea. It was all the fault of his business partner, Anderson. I will observe that the member for Edmonton Centre has repeatedly and disturbingly held himself to be indigenous. This is a member who once said he was Métis; he then said he was non-status adopted Cree. He then said he was not indigenous at all but an ally of indigenous peoples, and now I believe he is purporting, again, to be Métis. Maybe he is not.

It is tough to keep track, given all the representations over the years that the member for Edmonton Centre has made about his indigenous status, which he, in fact, does not have. I also have to observe that I have listened to the member make those representations. I can remember when he sat over there between 2015 and 2019. I heard him make those types of representations enough times that I simply assumed he had indigenous ancestry of some sort as one aspect of his background.

For the member to say now that he had no idea does not bear any credibility. I would submit that it is part of a pattern. This is a member who constantly says, very conveniently, that he has no idea. He had no idea that his company falsely represented itself to be indigenous owned, just as he had no idea that his company was connected to a cocaine trafficker. He had no idea about the text messages from Randy to his business partner, who was implicated in a half-a-million dollar fraud, or the arson at the company's warehouse. On and on it goes.

The minister's contention that he had no idea about the fact that his company tried to steal government contracts from legitimately owned indigenous businesses has zero credibility. Further, I would observe that the minister, at the time these bids and these false representations were made, was not just anyone at the company; he was one of two partners, and he was involved in the operations of the company on a day-to-day basis.

This was, after all, before the member returned and was appointed to cabinet after the 2021 election. As I noted, it seems very likely that, notwithstanding that he ought not to have been, the member continued to be involved in the operations of the business, including potentially involving himself in matters of fraud while he sat in cabinet.

It is imperative that the minister come before committee to answer questions. The day he resigned from cabinet happened to be the very day he was scheduled to appear before the ethics committee. I have to say I find it highly suspicious that the member resigned from cabinet on that day.

The member has been less than transparent when he has come before committee. When he first appeared before committee, when there were allegations surrounding these text messages of a Randy, he claimed, and he had the committee believe, that he had nothing to do with the company, nothing to do with the operations and nothing to do with communicating with Anderson. This was until further text messages revealed that this Randy was in Vancouver at the very same time the former minister was in Vancouver. He then came back to committee and said, “Oh, actually, I did talk to my business partner, Anderson. Oops, I forgot to mention it.” This was not just an omission. It was a material omission that amounted to misleading the committee.

The member for Edmonton Centre better not hide behind the fact that he is not in cabinet because right now he is in hiding. No one has heard or seen from the member since he resigned from cabinet. He needs to come out of hiding. He needs to come to committee, and he must answer for his conduct involving this sordid and fraudulent matter.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

The question is on the amendment.

If a member participating in person wishes that the amendment be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded vote, please.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Tuesday, December 3, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.